|Publication number||US8196104 B2|
|Application number||US 11/214,937|
|Publication date||Jun 5, 2012|
|Filing date||Aug 31, 2005|
|Priority date||Aug 31, 2005|
|Also published as||US20070074167|
|Publication number||11214937, 214937, US 8196104 B2, US 8196104B2, US-B2-8196104, US8196104 B2, US8196104B2|
|Inventors||Christian Cohrs, Alexey Medvedev, Christian Jendel, Wolfgang Roeder|
|Original Assignee||Sap Ag|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (26), Non-Patent Citations (12), Referenced by (7), Classifications (7), Legal Events (3)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
The present invention generally relates to testing software applications. More particularly, the invention relates to systems and methods for automatically determining whether a software application is accessible for disabled users.
Until recently, most computer applications were designed primarily to be used by people without disabilities—people that can see, hear, operate a mouse and keyboard, and distinguish colors without difficulty. Computer application interface design practices changed in 2001, after the U.S. Congress amended Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to require U.S. Federal Government (“Federal”)agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities and corresponding rules came into effect.
The primary purpose of Section 508 is to foster access to and use of Federal executive agencies' electronic and information technology (EIT) by individuals with disabilities. EIT includes information technology (IT), and any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information. This includes any system used for communication, duplication, computing, storage, presentation, control, transport or production of information, such as computers, software applications, networks, web sites, peripherals and other types of electronic office equipment. Inaccessible technology interferes with an individual's ability to obtain and use data or information quickly and easily. Section 508 is designed to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, buy, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508, agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.
Although Section 508 does not directly apply to the private sector, because of the magnitude of federal purchasing power—federal agencies generally must purchase electronic and information technology that is Section 508 compliant—many EIT producers design their products for compliance. Thus, in one sense, Section 508 promotes accessibility competition in the technology industry by clarifying the federal market's requirement for accessibility in products intended for general use. Companies interested in selling EIT to the Federal government are responsible for designing and manufacturing products that meet the applicable Section 508 provisions. For example, if two companies are bidding a government contract and one is offering accessible solutions and the other is not, the accessible technology is likely to win the contract.
The technical standards of Section 508 provide criteria specific to various types of technologies, including software applications and operating systems, web-based information, and desktop and portable computers, among others. The standards provide both technical specifications and performance-based requirements that focus on the functional capabilities of covered technologies. Certain provisions are designed to ensure compatibility with adaptive equipment that people with disabilities commonly use for information and communication access, such as screen readers, Braille displays, and TTYs.
Most of the standards for software applications pertain to usability for people with vision impairments. For example, one provision requires alternative keyboard navigation, which is essential for people with vision impairments who cannot rely on pointing devices, such as a mouse. Other provisions address animated displays, color and contrast settings, flash rate, and electronic forms, among other things.
The provisions for web-based technology and information are intended to ensure access for people with vision impairments who rely on various assistive products to access computer-based information, such as screen readers, which translate the contents of a computer screen into automated audible output, and refreshable Braille line displays, which are a tactile devices consisting of a row of special ‘soft’ cells having 6 or 8 pins that are controlled electronically to move up and down to form Braille characters as they appear on the display of a source system, such as a computer. Certain conventions, such as verbal tags or identification of graphics, and format devices, like frames, are necessary so that these products can “read” them for the user in a sensible way. The standards do not prohibit the use of graphics or animation. Instead, the standards try to ensure that graphic and animation information is also available in another accessible format. Generally, this means use of text labels or descriptors for graphics and certain format elements. For example, HTML code provides an “Alt Text” tag for graphics which can serve as a verbal descriptor for graphics. The standards also addresses the usability of multimedia presentations, image maps, style sheets, scripting languages, applets and plug-ins, and electronic forms.
To comply with Section 508, software application designers and implementers, including web site designers and implementers, must meet the set of functional standards that require, for example, that there be a way for a person who is mobility-impaired or blind to use the software product or Web site. More specifically, the Section 508 standards require a web site or application user interface to satisfy sixteen items for accessibility. These are specific things a web site or application must do to ensure that a person who is mobility impaired, blind, or otherwise impaired can use the application. For example, the standards require the use of alternative text for images and the use of client-side image maps instead of server-side maps.
Because of the purchasing power of the Federal government, among other things, many EIT vendors try to incorporate accessibility features into their products and service offerings, both new and existing. Many problems arise, however, in testing a software application or other product for compliance with Section 508 or other accessibility standard. Testing an application that has a rich user interface, for example, requires an enormous effort and a large amount of money to determine whether each user-interface element of each display screen meets accessibility compliance goals. Testing is even more problematic for an application featuring screens with user-interface elements that are assembled dynamically, as compliance checks must be done at runtime because static representations of the screens do not exist.
One possible solution is to manually test all the possible user-interface screens and elements for accessibility compliance. Companies, however, often lack the resources to, or cannot profitably, test all their products manually.
Another possible solution is to employ conventional tools, such as Bobby (http://www.watchfire.com/products/desktop/bobby/default.aspx), to test simple user-interface elements, such as those found in HTML pages, for accessibility problems. Such conventional tools, however, cannot test rich user interfaces or consider the context of an element in a dynamically assembled user-interface display because they operate at the HTML level and are limited to the information provided by an HTML page.
Accordingly, it is desirable to develop systems and methods that are capable of testing a rich-user-interface application for compliance with accessibility standards, including context evaluation of the elements. It is also desirable to develop systems and methods for testing applications for accessibility, such as Section 508 compliance, during the applications' development phase, evaluating the accessibility status of an application during acceptance testing, and integrating the accessibility checks into an automatic application test that emulates end user interaction.
Systems, methods, and computer program product embodiments consistent with the invention expose semantic information for the user interface elements of an application at runtime as part of an object model and check accessibility requirements compliance, such as Section 508 compliance or compliance with the guidelines of the World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C WAI), for each user interface element that the application displays. In some embodiments, accessibility checks are based at least in part on the context of the user interface elements as exposed through the object model.
Implementations of systems, methods, and computer programs consistent with the invention for testing for accessibility an application having source code contain components for and perform operations comprising: providing a set of accessibility rules; analyzing the source code of the application; generating an object model representing the application based on the source code analysis; testing an object from the object model to determine compliance with the set of accessibility rules; and presenting a result of the testing.
Other implementations of systems, methods, and computer programs for a product validation product consistent with the invention comprise: an object model generator that analyzes the source code of a software application and generates an object model representing the application; an accessibility checking tool that tests each object from the object model to determine compliance with a set of accessibility rules and reports a test result; and an application object model exerciser that operates the object model such that essentially all objects from the object model are tested by the accessibility checking tool.
Advantages of the invention will be set forth in part in the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by practice of the invention. The advantages of the invention will be realized and attained by means of the elements and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims.
It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictive of the invention, as claimed.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate embodiments of the invention and together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the invention.
Reference will now be made in detail to exemplary embodiments of the invention, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. Wherever convenient, the same reference numbers will be used throughout the drawings to refer to the same or like parts.
In one embodiment, the object model is generated based on the screen description that the server sends to the client. If, for example, the server sends a button as part of the screen description, the properties of the button can be accessed from an external application using a communications interface. For the button example, the following properties may be available:
Next, the process tests the object model for accessibility (stage 110). In one embodiment consistent with the invention, testing for accessibility involves testing whether the user-interface-related objects in the object model meet the requirements of a set of accessibility standards, provisions, or requirements, such as the Section 508 standards. For example, the process may determine whether a control button object that includes a method(s) for displaying a control button labeled with an icon, (e.g., a button with a picture of a floppy disk that causes an application to save a user's work when activated), also includes a method for displaying a text tooltip, which is needed for screen reader accessibility. As shown in the example of button properties above, the process may check, for example, the properties for “icon name” and “tooltip” to determine whether an icon and a tooltip exist for the button. Similarly, the process can also determine whether a label was assigned or not using the object properties.
After the object model is tested, the process reports the results of the testing (stage 115). This may be done by printing a report, displaying the results on a user screen display, transmitting data to another process or application, or by various other ways known to those skilled in the art.
In one embodiment consistent with the invention, the accessibility rules are custom designed to test whether the objects in the object model provide accessibility to handicapped or disabled users. For example, a rule may be that an object may not generate a frame within an existing frame because this may be confusing to blind users and screen reader devices and applications. For another example, a rule may be that checking a check box control cannot change the whole screen, again because this may be confusing to blind users and screen reader devices and applications. In yet another example, a rule may be that there must be some way, in addition to highlighting, to indicate where the current focus is because blind users cannot see which frame, control, etc. is highlighted.
In another embodiment consistent with the invention, the accessibility rules are designed to test compliance with a set of accessibility standards, provisions, or requirements, such as the Section 508 standards. For example, the accessibility rules may be designed to test compliance with the Section 508 standards as illustrated in Table 1.
Section 508 Standard
Accessibility Rule Example
(a) A text equivalent for every non-text
Every image, Java applet, Flash file, video file,
element shall be provided (e.g., via “alt”,
audio file, plug-in, etc. has an alt description.
“longdesc”, or in element content).
Complex graphics (graphs, charts, etc.) are
accompanied by detailed text descriptions
conveying the meaning of the graphic.
The alt descriptions succinctly describe the
purpose of the objects, without being too
verbose (for simple objects) or too vague (for
complex objects) or redundant (e.g. the alt text
is the same as the text immediately preceding
or following it in the document).
Alt descriptions for images used as links are
descriptive of the link destination.
Decorative graphics with no other function
have empty alt descriptions (alt = “”), but they
do not have missing alt descriptions or
descriptions that say “spacer”, “decorative
graphic,” or other titles that only increase the
time that it takes to listen to a page when using
a screen reader.
(b) Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia
Multimedia files have synchronized captions.
presentation shall be synchronized with the
(c) Web pages shall be designed so that all
If color is used to convey important
information conveyed with color is also
information, an alternative indicator is used,
available without color, for example from
such as an asterisk (*) or other symbol, so the
context or markup.
use of a color monitor is not required.
Contrast is good.
(d) Documents shall be organized so they are
Style sheets may be used for color, indentation
readable without requiring an associated style
and other presentation effects, but the
document is still understandable (even if less
visually appealing) when the style sheet is
(e) Redundant text links shall be provided for
Separate text links are provided outside of the
each active region of a server-side image map.
server-side image map to access the same
content that any image map hot spots access,
making a mouse unnecessary and the links
available to assistive technologies.
(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided
Client-side image maps are used, and
instead of server-side image maps except
appropriate alt text is provided for the image as
where the regions cannot be defined with an
well as the hot spots.
available geometric shape.
(g) Row and column headers shall be identified
Data tables have the column and row headers
for data tables.
appropriately identified (using the <th> tag)
Tables used strictly for layout purposes do
NOT have header rows or columns.
(h) Markup shall be used to associate data cells
Table cells are associated with the appropriate
and header cells for data tables that have two or
headers (e.g. with the id, headers, scope and/or
more logical levels of row or column headers.
axis HTML attributes).
(i) Frames shall be titled with text that
Each frame is given a title that helps the user
facilitates frame identification and navigation.
understand the frame's purpose.
(j) Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the
No elements on the page flicker at a rate of 2
screen to flicker with a frequency greater than
to 55 cycles per second, thus reducing the risk
2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
of optically-induced seizures.
(k) A text-only page, with equivalent
A text-only version is created only when there
information or functionality, shall be provided
is no other way to make the content accessible,
to make a web site comply with the provisions
or when it offers significant advantages over
of this part, when compliance cannot be
the “main” version for certain disability types.
accomplished in any other way. The content of
the text-only page shall be updated whenever
the primary page changes.
The text-only version is up-to-date with the
The text-only version provides the
functionality equivalent to that of the “main”
An alternative is provided for components (e.g.
plug-ins, scripts) that are not directly
(l) When pages utilize scripting languages to
Information within the scripts is text-based, or
display content, or to create interface elements,
a text alternative is provided for graphics-as-
the information provided by the script shall be
text within the script itself, in accordance with
identified with functional text that can be read
(a) in the Section 508 standards.
by assistive technology.
either directly accessible to assistive
technologies (e.g., keyboard accessible), or an
alternative method of accessing equivalent
functionality is provided (e.g. a standard
HTML link). Scripts work without a mouse
(m) When a web page requires that an applet,
A link is provided to a disability-accessible
plug-in or other application be present on the
page where the plug-in can be downloaded,
client system to interpret page content, the
and the download page is disability-accessible.
page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet
that complies with §1194.21(a) through (1).
All Java applets, scripts and plug-ins (e.g.,
Acrobat PDF files, PowerPoint files, etc.) and
the content within them are accessible to
assistive technologies, or else an alternative
means of accessing equivalent content is
(n) When electronic forms are designed to be
All form controls have text labels adjacent to
completed on-line, the form shall allow people
using assistive technology to access the
information, field elements, and functionality
required for completion and submission of the
form, including all directions and cues.
Form elements have labels associated with
them in the markup (e.g., the id and for,
Dynamic HTML scripting of the form does not
interfere with assistive technologies.
(o) A method shall be provided that permits
A link is provided to skip over lists of
users to skip repetitive navigation links.
navigational menus or other lengthy lists of
(p) When a timed response is required, the user
The user has control over the timing of content
shall be alerted and given sufficient time to
changes, and is not required to react within
indicate more time is required.
limited time restraints.
In one embodiment consistent with the invention, the accessibility rules may be changed without changing the test engine that uses the rules, thus changing the testing of the object model of the application with minimal effort.
As shown in
Object model testing of an application's user interface provides thorough testing because the object model contains useful semantic information relating to the meaning of an object, instruction, attribute, etc., in addition to the basic format information available from other models. Thus, implementations consistent with the invention may test the functioning of interface elements for rules compliance using the semantic information to determine the context of the element. For example, the testing application may follow function calls from a control object to an object invoked by the control, e.g., navigating through an object tree. HTML-type testing, for example, cannot perform context testing, such as testing what a control does, because an HTML-level model merely looks at the elements finally rendered on a screen, while an object model can test the underlying objects that create the final screen output. That is, at the HTML level, a control is merely a graphic element on the screen that is not much different than other graphic elements, and that does not contain the semantic information necessary to test it fully with respect to its control functionality, among other things. At the object model level, on the other hand, a control object can be recognized for what it is, and tested accordingly. For example, object model testing may determine whether checking a checkbox control violates an accessibility rule requiring that checking a checkbox cannot change the entire display screen. Similarly, object model testing may determine whether a frame is displayed within another frame, perhaps in violation of an accessibility rule prohibiting frames within frames. For another example, object model testing has access to information indicating whether a screen element is in a table or not and can apply different rules that apply to table elements or non-table elements. HTML-screen-level testing cannot perform such tests. Yet another example is a tabstrip control. In HTML, this is rendered as a set of tables, so the semantics of the control are lost. In an object model consistent with the invention, the actual type of the control is retained and the process can apply the matching rules.
Next, the process determines whether there are more objects in the object model to be tested (stage 225). If so (225, Yes) the process loops to receive another object from the object model and test it.
If not, (225, No), the process presents the results regarding whether the objects in the object model comply with the accessibility rules (stage 230).
Processes consistent with the invention, such as the processes illustrated in
In the implementation shown, an assistive technology tool 330, such as a Braille keyboard application for a Braille interface 340 (e.g., the Braille In™ keyboard by Sighted Electronics, Inc., a Braille keyboard by Hooleon Corp., or a Braille line display by Baum Retec AG or F.G. Papenmeier GmbH & Co. KG) or a screen reader application for a display screen 345 (e.g., the JAWS™ screen reader by Freedom Scientific Corp., the LOOKout™ screen reader by Choice Technology, Inc., or the Virgo™ screen reader by Baum Retec AG), is used to access an object model. Because assistive technology tool 330 is not designed to work with an object model, such as object model 301, interface or “glue” code 320 is used to interface between the two. Interface code 320 may be a custom application that makes the interface to application runtime object model 301 appear and react as the normal interface to assistive technology tool 330, such as an HTML interface.
In the system architecture shown in
In this implementation, application runtime object model 401 is tested automatically by accessibility check tool 430. Unlike the architecture shown in
Application runtime object model 401 is operated manually by a person 402. Person 402 should run application runtime object model 401 through all its states and operations so the all user-interface elements, including dynamically configured elements, may be tested for accessibility.
In this implementation, manual operation of application runtime object model 501 may be replaced by automatic operation performed by an application running a server-based test script 555 guided by a central product validation system 550. This architecture allows central validation system 550 to initiate automatic full loop testing of application runtime object model 501 for compliance with accessibility requirements.
As in the architecture shown in
The architecture shown in
System 600 includes a number of components, such as a central processing unit (CPU) 610, a memory 620, an input/output (I/O) device(s) 630, and a database 660 that can be implemented in various ways. For example, an integrated platform (such as a workstation, personal computer, laptop, etc.) may comprise CPU 610, memory 620 and I/O devices 630. In such a configuration, components 610, 620, and 630 may connect through a local bus interface and access to database 660 (implemented as a separate database system) may be facilitated through a direct communication link, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) and/or other suitable connections. For another example, system 600 may be part of a larger central product validation system.
CPU 610 may be one or more known processing devices, such as a microprocessor from the Pentium family manufactured by Intel™. Memory 620 may be one or more storage devices configured to store information used by CPU 610 to perform certain functions related to embodiments of the present invention. Memory 620 may be a magnetic, semiconductor, tape, optical, or other type of storage device. In one embodiment, memory 620 includes one or more programs 625 that, when executed by CPU 610, perform various processes consistent with the present invention. For example, memory 620 may include a accessibility check tool program that test an object model to determine whether a software application complies with accessibility requirements, such as the Section 508 accessibility standards. Memory 620 may also include other programs that perform other functions, such as a program that runs a test script to exercise an application object model during testing.
Methods, systems, and articles of manufacture consistent with the present invention are not limited to programs configured to perform dedicated tasks. For example, memory 620 may be configured with a program 625 that performs several functions when executed by CPU 610. That is, memory 620 may include an application accessibility test program that incorporates the functions of an accessibility check tool, a test script execution tool, and a central product validation system. Alternatively, CPU 610 may execute one or more programs located remotely from system 600. For example, system 600 may access one or more remote programs that, when executed, perform functions related to embodiments of the present invention.
Memory 620 may be also be configured with an operating system (not shown) that performs several functions well known in the art when executed by CPU 610. By way of example, the operating system may be Microsoft Windows™, Unix™, Linux™, an Apple Computers operating system, Personal Digital Assistant operating system such as Microsoft CE™, or other operating system. The choice of operating system, and even to the use of an operating system, is not critical to the invention.
I/O device(s) 630 may comprise one or more input/output devices that allow data to be received and/or transmitted by system 600. For example, I/O device 630 may include one or more input devices, such as a modem, network connection, keyboard, touch screen, mouse, and the like, that enable data to be input, including data from a user. Further, I/O device 630 may include one or more output devices, such as a modem, network connection, display screen, CRT monitor, LCD monitor, plasma display, printer, speaker devices, and the like, that enable data to be output or presented, including presentation to a user. The configuration and number of input and/or output devices incorporated in I/O device 630 are not critical to the invention.
Database 660 may comprise one or more databases that store information and are accessed and/or managed through system 600. By way of example, database 660 may be an Oracle™ database, a Sybase™ database, or other relational database, or database 660 may be part of a central product validation system. Systems and methods of the present invention, however, are not limited to separate databases or even to the use of a database, and can include systems that use data from practically any source, such as the internet and other organized collections of data, or memory systems.
One of ordinary skill in the art will also recognize that the implementations described and suggested above can be implemented using conventional equipment and programming techniques.
Other embodiments of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the specification and practice of the invention disclosed herein. It is intended that the specification and examples be considered as exemplary only, with a true scope and spirit of the invention being indicated by the following claims.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US6681383 *||Apr 4, 2000||Jan 20, 2004||Sosy, Inc.||Automatic software production system|
|US6775824 *||Jan 12, 2000||Aug 10, 2004||Empirix Inc.||Method and system for software object testing|
|US6918066 *||Sep 26, 2001||Jul 12, 2005||International Business Machines Corporation||Method and system for evaluating applications on different user agents|
|US7203928 *||Dec 31, 2002||Apr 10, 2007||Sun Microsystems, Inc.||Method and system for generating and maintaining uniform test results|
|US7490319 *||Nov 3, 2004||Feb 10, 2009||Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.||Testing tool comprising an automated multidimensional traceability matrix for implementing and validating complex software systems|
|US7519953 *||Sep 30, 2003||Apr 14, 2009||Microsoft Corporation||Method and system for automatically testing a software build|
|US7840944 *||Nov 23, 2010||Sap Ag||Analytical regression testing on a software build|
|US7950004 *||May 24, 2011||Siemens Corporation||Devices systems and methods for testing software|
|US20020085037||Nov 9, 2001||Jul 4, 2002||Change Tools, Inc.||User definable interface system, method and computer program product|
|US20020156799||Apr 24, 2002||Oct 24, 2002||Stephen Markel||System and method for verifying and correcting websites|
|US20020178007||Feb 25, 2002||Nov 28, 2002||Benjamin Slotznick||Method of displaying web pages to enable user access to text information that the user has difficulty reading|
|US20030210266||May 7, 2002||Nov 13, 2003||International Business Machines Corporation||Design environment to facilitate accessible software|
|US20040117248||Dec 12, 2002||Jun 17, 2004||International Business Machines Corporation||System and methd for providing accessibility advertisement|
|US20040117278||Dec 12, 2002||Jun 17, 2004||International Business Machines Corporation||System and method for accessibility accounting services|
|US20040117279||Dec 12, 2002||Jun 17, 2004||International Business Machines Corporation||System and method for electronic accessibility privileges|
|US20040117370||Dec 12, 2002||Jun 17, 2004||International Business Machines Corporation||System and method for accessibility data maintenance and privilege authorization|
|US20040139370 *||Jan 14, 2003||Jul 15, 2004||Dan Bailey||Source code analysis|
|US20040148568||Oct 19, 2001||Jul 29, 2004||Springer Timothy Stephen||Checker and fixer algorithms for accessibility standards|
|US20040158429||Feb 10, 2003||Aug 12, 2004||Bary Emad Abdel||Method and system for classifying content and prioritizing web site content issues|
|US20040218451||Nov 5, 2003||Nov 4, 2004||Said Joe P.||Accessible user interface and navigation system and method|
|US20050223363 *||Mar 31, 2004||Oct 6, 2005||International Business Machines Corporation||Evaluation of a code segment|
|US20060070035 *||Sep 29, 2004||Mar 30, 2006||Microsoft Corporation||Test automation stack layering|
|US20060156286 *||Jan 11, 2005||Jul 13, 2006||Morgan Fabian F||Dynamic source code analyzer|
|US20060195819 *||Feb 25, 2005||Aug 31, 2006||Microsoft Corporation||Method and system for verifying rule compliance of an application object|
|US20080127103 *||Jul 27, 2006||May 29, 2008||International Business Machines Corporation||Dynamic deneration and implementation of globalization verification testing for user interface controls|
|US20080155508 *||Dec 13, 2006||Jun 26, 2008||Infosys Technologies Ltd.||Evaluating programmer efficiency in maintaining software systems|
|1||Bobby-Web Accessibility Testing, Watchfire®, ,http://www.watchfire.com/products/desktop/bobby/default.aspx> (1 page) (accessed May 6, 2005).|
|2||Bobby—Web Accessibility Testing, Watchfire®, ,http://www.watchfire.com/products/desktop/bobby/default.aspx> (1 page) (accessed May 6, 2005).|
|3||*||E. Gibson, Web accessibility and section 508 compliance, May 2002, pp. 257-259, .|
|4||*||E. Gibson, Web accessibility and section 508 compliance, May 2002, pp. 257-259, <http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/775787/p257-gibson.pdf>.|
|5||*||Feigenbaum et al., Accessibility validation with RAVEN, May 2006, pp. 27-32, .|
|6||*||Feigenbaum et al., Accessibility validation with RAVEN, May 2006, pp. 27-32, <http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1140000/1137709/p27-feigenbaum.pdf>.|
|7||*||Hyun et al., An active step toward a web content accessible society, May 2005, pp. 55-59, .|
|8||*||Hyun et al., An active step toward a web content accessible society, May 2005, pp. 55-59, <http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1070000/1061821/p55-hyun.pdf>.|
|9||*||Stone et al., Proving the validity and accessibility of dynamic web-pages, Jun. 2003, pp. 13-14, .|
|10||*||Stone et al., Proving the validity and accessibility of dynamic web-pages, Jun. 2003, pp. 13-14, <http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1040000/1036407/p13-stone.pdf>.|
|11||Watchfire® Bobby(TM) 5.0, http://watchfire.com, "Web Accessibility Testing" copyright 2002 (4 pages) (downloaded May 6, 2005).|
|12||Watchfire® Bobby™ 5.0, http://watchfire.com, "Web Accessibility Testing" copyright 2002 (4 pages) (downloaded May 6, 2005).|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8484618 *||Nov 23, 2011||Jul 9, 2013||Advanced Testing Technologies, Inc.||Test program set obsolescence mitigation through software and automatic test equipment processes|
|US8914776 *||May 17, 2012||Dec 16, 2014||Microsoft Corporation||Assisting development tools through inserted code statements|
|US8997053 *||Jan 14, 2011||Mar 31, 2015||Worksoft, Inc.||System and method for automated testing of software applications with dynamic user interfaces spanning multiple technologies|
|US9372933||Nov 6, 2013||Jun 21, 2016||International Business Machines Corporation||Personalized quantitative measure of accessibility|
|US20110173590 *||Jul 14, 2011||Worksoft, Inc.||System and method for automated testing of software applications with dynamic user interfaces spanning multiple technologies|
|US20120072774 *||Nov 23, 2011||Mar 22, 2012||Advanced Testing Technologies, Inc.||Test Program Set Obsolescence Mitigation Through Software and Automatic Test Equipment Processes|
|US20130311973 *||May 17, 2012||Nov 21, 2013||Microsoft Corporation||Assisting Development Tools Through Inserted Code Statements|
|U.S. Classification||717/124, 717/127, 717/125, 717/126|
|Oct 27, 2005||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: SAP AG, GERMANY
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:COHRS, CHRISTIAN;MEDVEDEV, ALEXEY;JENDEL, CHRISTIAN;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:017140/0565;SIGNING DATES FROM 20050901 TO 20050912
Owner name: SAP AG, GERMANY
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:COHRS, CHRISTIAN;MEDVEDEV, ALEXEY;JENDEL, CHRISTIAN;AND OTHERS;SIGNING DATES FROM 20050901 TO 20050912;REEL/FRAME:017140/0565
|Aug 26, 2014||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: SAP SE, GERMANY
Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:SAP AG;REEL/FRAME:033625/0334
Effective date: 20140707
|Nov 26, 2015||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4